Preamble

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

GRAND UNION CANAL COMPANY.

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [18th December]:
That the Grand Union Canal Company be relieved from the obligation to promote not later than the Session of 1946 a Bill to consolidate the Acts relating to the several parts of their undertaking and the obligation to promote not later than the Session of 1944 an Amending Bill with a view to facilitating the task of consolidation, being obligations to which the Company are subject by virtue of a promise given in the proceedings before the Committee to which the Regent's Canal and Dock Company (Grand Junction Canal Purchase) Bill was referred in the year 1928 as varied by resolutions passed by this House on the 12th day of July, 1932, the 27th day of July, 1937, and the 27th day of June, 1940."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Further adjourned till the second Sitting Day after 1st February.

Oral Answers to Questions — GREAT BRITAIN AND RUSSIA (SCIENTIFIC MISSIONS).

Mr. Edmund Harvey: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, during the time he was in Moscow, he was able to carry any further the discussions which had previously taken place with the Soviet Government about the desirability of an exchange of scientific missions between the two countries; and whether the practical difficulties in putting the scheme into effect have now been disposed of?

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): No, Sir. The position has not changed since the matter was discussed with the Soviet Government, and it was agreed that for practical reasons the proposed exchange of scientific missions between the two countries should be postponed.

Mr. Harvey: May I take it that the matter is still under consideration for appropriate action when a suitable time arises?

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir, certainly; as far as we are concerned, we shall be glad to arrange it, but Soviet scientists are too busy at present.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA (ALLIED WAR AIMS).

Mr. Mander: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make it clear that one of the aims of the Allies in this war, in so far as China is concerned, is the restoration to her of all territories seized by force by Japan, including Manchuria; and whether a treaty of alliance is contemplated?

Mr. Purbrick: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make clear to the Japanese people that when the war is over not only will they have to give up all the foreign territory they have occupied but also Manchuria, Korea and all their island possessions, together with their conquests in China, and that reprisals will be made for all the outrages they commit?

Mr. Eden: I would refer my hon. Friends to the "Declaration by the United Nations" signed at Washington on 1st January, the text of which has been published in the Press. The Declaration endorses the purposes and principles of the Atlantic Charter, the third article of which relates to the restoration of sovereign rights and self-government to those who have been forcibly deprived of them. In view of the establishment of the "United Nations," I cannot make any further statement on behalf of His Majesty's Government alone on the aims of the Allies, nor forecast the demands to be made eventually on the enemy.

Mr. Mander: May I take it that the Chinese Government are satisfied that this covers the restoration of territory seized forcibly by Japan in the Far East?

Mr. Eden: I cannot speak for any other Government than our own, but the Chinese Government are themselves a party to this Declaration.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Is it not a fact that neither the British Government nor any


other of the Allied Governments have ever recognised the conquest of Manchuria, and that therefore their action is in no way compromised by past events?

Mr. Eden: That is so.

Oral Answers to Questions — TYPHUS (EASTERN EUROPE).

Sir Francis Fremantle: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has now any information as to the prevalence of typhus, otherwise known as camp or jail fever, on the Russian front and in Eastern and South-Eastern Europe?

Mr. Eden: The information in my possession indicates that there has been a marked increase of typhus on the German side of the Russian front and in Eastern and South-Eastern Europe. No statistics of the number of cases can be obtained. From motives which my hon. Friend will understand, the German authorities prefer to keep these figures secret.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE.

AIRCRAFT (SPARE PARTS).

Mr. Garro Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that several hundred aircraft are grounded for lack of spare parts, airscrews, etc.; and to what extent the responsibility for these deficiencies rests upon the Air Ministry?

The Secretary of State for Air (Sir Archibald Sinclair): In an Air Force of large size a number of aircraft must always be unserviceable for short periods awaiting spares The current proportion is not, however, abnormal, and the supply of spares is improving. The Air Ministry is responsible for stating its requirements for equipment, including spares, and the Ministry of Aircraft Production for meeting them.

Mr. Garro Jones: When my right hon. Friend says that the total number of aircraft grounded for lack of spares is not abnormal, does he mean that there has been no improvement over the enormous proportion of aircraft grounded for lack of spares six to 12 months ago?

Sir A. Sinclair: No, Sit. It is true that the supply of spares has given some cause for anxiety in the past, but I am glad to assure the hon. Member that the position is improving.

Mr. Garro Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that maintenance and repair instructions for air units are supplied, some by the Air Ministry and some by the Ministry of Aircraft Production; that this division of responsibility is resulting in contradictory instructions and to a large number of errors in the spare parts volume; and whether he will take steps to unify the instructions?

Sir A. Sinclair: The Director of Servicing and Maintenance in my Department and the Director of Repair and Maintenance in the Ministry of Aircraft Production issue instructions within their respective spheres. They are in constant touch with each other and are fully aware of the need for co-ordination in order to avoid overlapping or conflicting instructions. The "spare parts volume" to which the hon. Member refers is presumably Technical Publication Vol. III. This is a schedule of components and spare parts based on information supplied by manufacturers. It is affected by design modifications and changes in manufacturing practice, and amendment lists are issued regularly to all concerned. I am in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Aircraft Production as to whether any further action is required.

Mr. Garro Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that the Director of Repair and Maintenance under the Ministry of Aircraft Production is stationed in one town, that his technical staff are stationed in another town, that the Air Ministry organisation for the provision of spare parts is situated in a third town, and that the actual supply of spare parts is the function of a director of depots situated in a fourth town; that this system involves inordinate delays due to correspondence and other paper work; that important communications upon which the supply of equipment depends frequently take two or three months to make the complete circuit of reference; and whether he is prepared to consider proposals for a better arrangement?

Sir A. Sinclair: I am aware that the dispersal to which the hon. Member refers is


administratively inconvenient, but in the existing circumstances governing Government Department locations and accommodation this must be accepted as inevitable. Because it causes delay in the transit of correspondence, special arrangements for the delivery of urgent communications have been made. The supply of spare parts to the Royal Air Force is carried out by maintenance units under the control of a group commander whose headquarters are adjacent to those of the Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Maintenance Command; therefore I cannot agree that the arrangement must involve any considerable delay in the supply of equipment. If the hon. Member has any suggestions to make, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Aircraft Production and I will, of course, be glad to consider them.

Mr. Garro Jones: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of those who are responsible for administering this part of the machinery of supply are greatly concerned about the dispersal of the various Departments, and that delays amounting to three or four months in correspondence regularly occur?

Sir A. Sinclair: I am aware that this dispersal, which is forced upon us by circumstances outside our control, does involve serious disadvantages. I am taking every possible step to minimise these disadvantages, and I am in consultation with the Minister of Aircraft Production now. I shall be very glad to receive any suggestions.

Mr. Garro Jones: Will the right hon. Gentleman make an explicit investigation into the possibility of bringing these various Departments into closer geographical relation?

Sir A. Sinclair: I should be very glad indeed if that were possible. That is certainly an aspect of the problem which is very much in the mind of the Minister of Aircraft Production and my own, and will be part of the study which we are now giving to the matter.

ACCESS TO AERODROMES (INCIDENTS).

Mr. Thorne: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he can now give any information about the two German prisoners-of-war who posed as Dutchmen and were fitted with flying-suits, and got away in a two-seater Miles Magister without an alarm being given?

Squadron-Leader Hulbert: asked the Secretary of State for Air the result of the court of inquiry into the theft of the Magister aircraft by two escaped German prisoners last month; and what disciplinary action has been taken against those responsible?

Mr. Garro Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Air on what date the two escaping Nazi prisoners obtained access to a Royal Air Force aircraft; on what date the inquiry into this episode began; on what date he received the report; and what are its findings?

Sir A. Sinclair: I would refer hon. Members to the answer which was given yesterday to the Question on this subject by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Under-Secretary of State.

Mr. Thorne: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he can give any information in connection with four schoolboys who entered a North-Western airfield, on Sunday, 4th January, and interfered with six aeroplanes; whether it is the same aerodrome from which escaped German prisoners stole an aeroplane some weeks ago; and what action he intends taking about the matter?

Mr. Ammon: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether the aerodrome from which two boys recently stole parts of the machinery from aircraft, is the same as that from which two German prisoners recently took a machine in an attempt to escape; and what is the reason for such apparent carelessness in safeguarding Royal Air Force machines?

Sir A. Sinclair: I would refer hon. Members to the statement on this matter which my right hon. and gallant Friend the Under-Secretary of State made yesterday in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Rusholme (Mr. Radford).

Mr. Shinwell: As that Question was not answered orally will the right hon. Gentleman give us the reply now?

Sir A. Sinclair: It appears in the OFFICIAL REPORT to-day.

Mr. Shinwell: But as it was not answered orally will not the right hon. Gentleman tell us what it was? Have we not the right to ask?

Mr. Thorne: The right hon. Gentleman said that this Question was answered yesterday. I was here the whole time and I never heard it answered.

Mr. Hopkinson: Were these machines in fact Air Force machines or were they the property of the Flying School?

Sir A. Sinclair: They were Royal Air Force aircraft on loan to the Flying School.

Mr. Garro Jones: Will the right hon. Gentleman at least tell the House whether it is the view of the Air Ministry that it is not possible to prevent what have been described as snoopers and school boys from entering these aerodromes? If he cannot prevent snoopers and school boys from doing so how is it possible to prevent other people from doing so?

Sir A. Sinclair: This took place the day before the German prisoners escaped. These boys were, in fact, observed, but so large was the aerodrome that they were able to do a certain amount of damage before being approached. They then got away, but were apprehended afterwards. Some of our bomber aerodromes are twice the size of Hyde Park, and it is impossible to prevent an occasional snooper from getting into so large an area. But, as regards sabotage, there has not been a single case since the war began. Sabotage can be done on a dangerous scale only by a considerable organisation, and we have our own methods of preventing it.

Mr. Garro Jones: I beg to give notice that, having regard to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I shall raise this matter, subject to my being called upon by Mr. Speaker, in the forthcoming Debate on the defence of aerodromes.

Mr. Ammon: I hope that that notice will not prejudice Question 23, which has not yet been reached.

Mr. Speaker: The two Questions are being answered together.

DISCHARGED PERSONNEL (SILVER BADGE).

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that officers and other ranks, who have served on active service in the present war and have, subsequently, been discharged owing to medical unfitness or ill-health, but have not been granted a pension, are not eligible to receive a silver badge for services rendered issued through the Ministry of Pensions; and, in view of this inequality, whether he will take steps to deal with the matter?

Sir A. Sinclair: I have nothing to add to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal to my hon. Friend the Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. Graham White) on 7th August last.

Mr. Bellenger: As this is a matter which very specially concerns the right hon. Gentleman's Department, does he not think it an unfair discrimination to say that men discharged from the Service and unable to prove their case for pension should be denied the silver badge? Will he reconsider this matter and make some representations to the Minister of Pensions?

Sir A. Sinclair: I do not think it is unfair. It does concern my Department, but it also concerns both the other Service Departments, and the Lord Privy Seal, in the answer to which I referred the hon. Member, gave the decision which had been arrived at by all the three Service Departments.

Major Milner: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what was the practice in the last war?

Sir A. Sinclair: Not without notice.

VOLUNTEER RESERVE (COMMISSIONS).

Mr. Liddall: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether, in connection with the cancellation of all applications for direct commissions as administrative officers in the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve, he is aware that many such applications were made by persons on the calling-up of their age groups between 32 and 38 years of age; and whether, in view of the delay in service that has already been gained by these persons who are still uncalled, he will take steps, in conjunction with the Minister of Labour, to ensure that they are called up for service forthwith?

Sir A. Sinclair: The answer to the first part of the Question is "Yes." As regards the second part, the names of all candidates for commissions whose applications are not being proceeded with are passed without delay to the Ministry of Labour and National Service.

AIRCRAFT ACCIDENT, STOCKTON-ON-TEES.

Mr. Thorne: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he can now give any information in connection with the Royal Air Force aeroplane that crashed


into a farmhouse at Quarry Farm, Ingleby, Barwick, Stockton-on-Tees; and how many of the crew and civilians were killed and injured?

Sir A. Sinclair: The aircraft was engaged on night flying training, and it crashed soon after taking off. It was so badly damaged that it was not possible to ascertain from the wreckage the cause of the mishap. The Royal Air Force Court of Inquiry which investigated the accident found that it was probably due to the aircraft stalling. Unfortunately, the five Service occupants of the aircraft and four members of the family living in the farmhouse were killed. One other civilian was slightly injured. I am sure that the House will join with me in expressing sympathy with the relatives of those who lost their lives in this tragic occurrence.

FLIGHT-SERGEANTS (DISCIPLINE).

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that flight-sergeants who have been on active operations have recently been subjected to all kinds of annoyances, such as quibbling over beds, and other petty offences resulting in defaulters' parades; and whether he will issue instructions that all the out-of-date ideas of maintaining discipline must be eliminated, and that flight-sergeants shall be given the same status as other commissioned ranks?

Sir A. Sinclair: I am not aware of any such incidents; but if the hon. Member will let me have particulars, I will have inquiries made.

LEAVE.

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Secretary of State for Air the principle on which leave is granted to all ranks; whether he is aware that Paragraph 4 of A. 657/40, as amended, is not satisfactory; what steps are to be taken to improve it; and will he give instructions that accrued leave shall be given within certain dates?

Sir A. Sinclair: Subject to the exigencies of the Service, all ranks serving at home may be granted leave, at the discretion of commanding officers, on the basis of 61 days a year for flying personnel and 28 days a year for ground personnel. In addition, week-end leave may be granted as circumstances permit. Local leave in overseas commands is at the discretion of the air officer commanding.

The leave year begins on 3rd September for personnel who were serving on 3rd September, 1939, and on the date of entering the Service for others. Flying personnel may be given leave at any time. Ground personnel are encouraged to take seven or 14 days' leave within every period of three or six months respectively, but air officers commanding may authorise the whole or part of this leave to be carried forward in exceptional circumstances. Leave may not, however, be carried forward from one leave year to another. This rule is applied throughout the Royal Air Force, and in the other Fighting Services as well. I have no reason to think that the arrangements generally are unsatisfactory.

MESSING ARRANGEMENTS.

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether, in cases where the duties of pilot officers and sergeant-pilots are the same, he will give the full reasons why they are not allowed to dine together; and whether he will further consider this matter?

Sir A. Sinclair: The identity of duties of officer pilots and those of sergeant-pilots applies only to actual flying, and the former have other duties and responsibilities which sergeant-pilots are not required to undertake. For the purpose of these other duties and responsibilities, officers are vested with powers of command and discipline; and, while there is no prohibition against officers and airmen taking meals together in public places, an arrangement for common messing at Air Force stations would not be in the interests of the Service.

Mr. Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider this policy, in view of the fact that sergeant pilots are doing such great work in actual operations? What are the other duties that officers have to perform?

Sir A. Sinclair: Duties as acting flight commander, orderly officer, member of a court of inquiry, and all sorts of other duties for which officers are specially trained. I do not yield one inch to the hon. Member in my admiration for the sergeant pilots, nor do any officers in the R.A.F.; but it is found a convenient arrangement that the sergeants should have their messes, and the officers theirs. I can assure the hon. Member that, in my


honest opinion, the arrangement is as popular with the sergeants as with the officers.

Mr. Shinwell: If these men can fly in the same planes together and take the same risks together, why cannot they mess together? Do the men themselves object to messing together?

Sir A. Sinclair: Of course they can mess together outside the stations when it is convenient, and they do so. But in the ordinary life of the station it is much more convenient and agreeable, both to the non-commissioned officers and to the commissioned officers, to have this arrangement.

Mr. Smith: In this House we are all doing the same kind of work, and in the Air Force those men are all doing the same kind of work. Why cannot the same conditions apply?

GROUNDED FLYING PERSONNEL (STATUS).

Mr. Ammon: asked the Secretary of State for Air, why there is a differentiation of treatment of pilot-officers grounded through lack of nerve, in that commissioned officers suffer no loss of status, but non-commissioned do and are placed on fatigue duties?

Sir A. Sinclair: There is no differentiation in principle in the treatment accorded to officers and airmen in the circumstances stated.

Mr. Ammon: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by "in principle"? There is a difference in practice.

Sir A. Sinclair: There is no difference in practice, except this. The airman who has been trained for air crew duties reverts to his status as aircraftman, unless he has a basic trade, and later on he will have opportunities of being trained for a trade. In the case of an officer who, without there being any medical grounds for his failure, has forfeited the confidence of his commanding officer in his reliability and his willingness to face danger, he is called upon to resign his commission. When he has resigned his commission, he becomes available to be called up under the National Service Acts, and to be given such duties as he is suited for.

Oral Answers to Questions — ATLANTIC AIR SERVICE.

Mr. Simmonds: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether it has yet been decided to operate a Pan American air service between this country and America; and upon what date it is hoped to commence scheduled flights?

Sir A. Sinclair: I understand that the Civil Aeronautics Board at Washington have recently authorised Pan American Airways to extend their Atlantic service from Lisbon to Foynes. I am not in a position to say when scheduled flights will commence.

Mr. Simmonds: Could my right hon. Friend say that there is no difficulty with Southern Ireland about this service being run, on account of that country's neutral status?

Sir A. Sinclair: I am not aware of any difficulties.

Oral Answers to Questions — AIRCRAFT PRODUCTION.

FACTORY WORK (TEMPORARY SUSPENSION)

Mr. Lipson: asked the Minister of Aircraft Production why, in view of the great need for aeroplanes, 1,200 men, employed at an aircraft factory of which he has been informed, were told, on Friday, 12th December, that they were not to go to work on Sunday, 14th December, in spite of a previous arrangement that they were to work on that day, Saturday being their agreed rest day for that week; why were they given no reason for this order; and why, when many of them disobeyed it and turned up to work, they were not allowed to do any though there was some they could have done?

The Minister of Aircraft Production (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon): This factory is in the process of changing over from the production of one type of aircraft to another, with its attendant disturbance of labour. Technical difficulties, which are inseparable from the production of new types, also occurred during the week-end in question. Owing to these circumstances, there was insufficient work to justify the men's attendance on the Sunday. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that the management should have taken the men's duly authorised representatives into confidence on the reasons for the temporary shortage of work, and


my Ministry is constantly impressing on contractors the desirability of such consultations.

Mr. Lipson: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend satisfied that all necessary steps are being taken, when there is a change-over of that kind, to see that the amount of idle time is reduced?

Sir Herbert Williams: Has the attention of my right hon. and gallant Friend been drawn to the fact that nearly all the complaints relating to work not being available are from factories having contracts with his Department, and not with other supply Departments?

CRITICISMS.

Mr. Ness Edwards: asked the Minister of Aircraft Production whether his attention has been drawn to the criticisms of production made by the general manager of General Aircraft, Limited, a copy of which has been sent to him; and whether he has any statement to make thereon?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: I am well aware of the activities of the general manager of General Aircraft, Limited, in regard to the question of production dealt with academically. It is not possible, within the limits of a Parliamentary answer, to deal with all the views expressed by Mr. Gordon England, but it will perhaps suffice if I say that such of the suggestions as are practicable represent the practice of my Department to a much greater extent than he appears to realise.

Mr. Edwards: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that this gentleman is the chairman of the Engineering Industries Association and is of the view that our production is only 50 per cent. of what it could be; and that he is in a very good position to know the general state of the engineering industry which has work under the Ministry of Aircraft Production?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: This gentleman is also a purveyor of aeroplanes to me, so that I know a good deal about it. On the other hand, hon. Members must remember that a Minister in charge of a production Department like my own is always going to get sniping and nagging, and if it is not coming from Mr. Gordon England, there will always be an England.

Mr. Shinwell: Are we to understand from the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's original answer and his supplementary reply, that he is casting doubts on the qualifications of Mr. Gordon England; is he aware that Mr. Gordon England represents not only himself but a very large volume of opinion of production experts in this country; and does not he think that it is more desirable to reply to points raised by Mr. Gordon England and others concerned than to indulge in the language he has just used and get on with the job?

Oral Answers to Questions — BUILDING CONTRACTS.

Sir H. Williams: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Buildings whether he has any statement to make with regard to the policy of his Department in the matter of the distribution of contracts, in the light of the complaint made by the Federation of Greater London Master Builders, to the effect that a few large contractors are receiving undue consideration?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Buildings (Mr. Hicks): It is the policy of the Ministry of Works and Buildings to spread opportunities of tendering for its contracts as widely as possible among suitable firms and the claims of firms established in the vicinity of proposed works are always carefully considered. We have taken special steps to secure that the smaller and medium-sized builders are considered and there are some hundreds of this type of builder now working for the Ministry. The large firms are brought in for the large jobs or for work which presents particular difficulties. It should, however, be noted that the Government building programme has now passed its peak and is growing substantially less.

Sir H. Williams: Is the Minister aware that only as recently as 4th January no fewer than seven separate contracts for aerodrome construction were given to one firm, namely, Messrs. Wimpeys and Company, Limited, or to some of their associated firms?

Mr. Quibell: Is my hon. Friend aware that in some districts where local firms have been encouraged to pool their resources there are hundreds of skilled men who have not received a pennyworth of


work, and that these firms have been engaged for months making arrangements to carry on their work, and yet London firms have been brought down to do the work and carry out these contracts?

Mr. Hicks: I am aware of complaints by contractors and also by operatives that opportunities for their employment have not always been available, but it is the policy of the Ministry of Works and Buildings, as of every other Government Department, to rationalise effort in accordance with war's necessity, and, as I indicated in the latter part of my reply, the peak in the building industry has now passed, and it is growing substantially less, and I imagine that there will be still further complaints of lack of opportunities.

Sir H. Williams: Why were seven contracts given in one day to the same firm?

Mr. Hicks: I thank the hon. Member for raising the question. I was not aware of that, but I will inquire.

Mr. Bossom: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Buildings whether, now that the Ministry has issued an Essential Work (Building and Civil Engineering) Order, 1941, to establish payments by results to the building industry, he is going to require contractors to work to a Time and Progress Schedule to enable this Order to be effective and fully beneficial both to the war effort and to the operatives?

Mr. Hicks: My Noble Friend is taking active steps with both contractors and Departments as to the value of Time and Progress Schedules, but it would not yet be practicable to seek to make this compulsory.

Mr. Bossom: Seeing that the Time and Progress Schedules have been so successful in many cases in avoiding delay and waste, could not the Minister and his Department see that these are applied right away, and that there shall be no further delay about it, as this should have been done a year ago?

Mr. Hicks: I can assure my hon. Friend that the importance of the point that he has raised is fully recognised. As I indicated in my reply, active steps are being taken by both contractors and the Department,

and this point of view will be taken into consideration at the earliest opportunity.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

SEA CADET CORPS.

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will take steps to institute the issue of overcoats to members of the Sea Cadet Corps; and whether the same privileges, regarding the issue of free kit, are accorded to members of a sea cadet unit as are accorded to members of the Air Training Corps?

The First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. A. V. Alexander): As part of the Government's policy for taking greater responsibility for training the youth of the country from the school leaving age, the Admiralty have arranged to take over the direction of the training and organisation of recognised Sea Cadet Corps, while leaving matters of administration in the hands of the present Central Associations, of which the most extensive is the Navy League. The revised arrangements will cover cadets between the ages of 14 and 17. These will be expected on attaining the age of 15 to give an honourable undertaking, supported by consent of the parents, to join the Navy upon or before attaining the call-up age.
An annual capitation grant of 12s. will be paid to the associations in respect of each cadet between the ages of 14 and 17. Cadets who, on attaining the age of 17 have enrolled under the "Y" Scheme and continue in the Sea Cadet Corps, will also be eligible for the increased grant. Uniform will be provided free for all cadets who come under the scheme. Details are not yet settled, but I hope to make a further statement on this point shortly. Grant and uniform will be subject to certain conditions of attendance at drills, and certification by an Admiralty Inspecting Officer of the efficiency of the unit. It is intended that selected Sea Cadet officers shall receive unpaid commissions in the Special Branch of the R.N.V.R.

Sir A. Southby: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the uniform is to be the same kind of quality as the uniform supplied to the Air Training Corps, and particularly, will the Sea Cadets be given


greatcoats; and is he further aware that recently I had the honour to inspect two detachments, one of which, the Air Training Corps, possessed beautiful greatcoats, whereas the other, the Sea Cadets, were shivering without any greatcoats at all?

Mr. Alexander: That is one of the details I am looking into at the moment with regard to which I hope to make a statement shortly.

DISCHARGED PERSONNEL (SILVER BADGE).

Mr. Bellenger: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that officers and other ranks who have served afloat in the present war and have subsequently been discharged owing to medical unfitness or ill-health, but have not been granted a pension, are not eligible to receive a silver badge for services rendered, issued through the Ministry of Pensions; and, in view of this inequality, whether he will take steps to deal with the matter?

Mr. Alexander: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War gave to a similar Question on 20th January.

Mr. Bellenger: Is the First Lord entirely satisfied with the present position? Will my right hon. Friend give me a reply to that Question, because either he is or he is not, and if he is not, I want to make representations to the Minister of Pensions?

Mr. Alexander: The decision, as I am sure my hon. Friend realises, on a matter of this sort is one for general agreement between Service departments and the Minister of Pensions. I feel certain that the representations he has made in the course of his Question will be taken into account, although I cannot anticipate that the decision he wants will necessarily be the decision.

U-BOAT DESTRUCTION (INFORMATION).

Captain Gammans: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is prepared to reconsider his decision not to publish periodical returns of the destruction of U-boats by the British Navy, in view of the fact that the American Navy is publishing returns of its successes against U-boats?

Mr. Alexander: No, Sir. The Admiralty occasionally publishes accounts of particular successes against U-boats and will continue to do so on suitable occasions. This, so far as I am aware, is the practice of the United States Naval Authorities.

CAMOUFLAGE.

Sir John Graham Kerr: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has completed his examination of certain evidence, photographic and documentary, bearing on the subject of camouflage; and whether he is now in a position to make a statement thereon?

Mr. Alexander: Yes, Sir. I regret that I have nothing to add to the letter dated 22nd December addressed to my hon. Friend by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty, and the suggestion which it contained.

LOSS OF HIS MAJESTY'S SHIPS "PRINCE OF WALES" AND "REPULSE."

Mr. Ammon: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether there is to be an official inquiry into the loss of His Majesty's Ship "Prince of Wales" and His Majesty's Ship "Repulse"?

Mr. Alexander: Reports concerning the sinking of His Majesty's Ship "Prince of Wales" and His Majesty's Ship "Repulse" have now been received and are being examined. On completion of this examination a decision will be taken as to whether a further inquiry will be necessary.

Mr. Ammon: Will the result of the investigation be communicated to the House?

Mr. Alexander: Any salient facts about the happenings which can be communicated to the House, under conditions which will safeguard any special points from the enemy, will be communicated to the House.

Mr. Ammon: Does my right hon. Friend remember that a somewhat similar promise was made with regard to His Majesty's Ship "Glorious" and that we have not yet had any information?

Sir A. Southby: If an inquiry does take place, will the terms of reference be wide enough to establish the responsibility for these ships being sent to the East without aircraft protection?

Oral Answers to Questions — CARRIBEAN COLONIES.

Sir Percy Hurd: asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can make a statement on the co-operation between the British Colonial and American authorities in economic research and welfare in the Carribean Colonies; and whether seeing Canada's close association with these Colonies, that Dominion is sharing in the co-operation?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. George Hall): It is not yet possible to make any statement on this subject, although I hope that this may be possible in the near future.

Sir P. Hurd: Is it possible to give an answer to the second part of my Question? Is Canada being invited to take part in these discussions?

Mr. Hall: I prefer not to reply until the negotiations now proceeding are complete.

Mr. Riley: Are negotiations going on at the present time with regard to this matter?

Mr. Hall: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA (PYRETHRUM PRODUCTION).

Mr. Harvey: asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) the reasons governing the decision that pyrethrum may only be grown in Kenya under licence;
(2) how many licences to grow pyrethrum have been issued to Africans in Kenya during the year 1940; whether he is satisfied that the charge of 50s. per annum for a licence is not in practice prohibitive for Africans; and whether he will consider reducing the cost to a smaller sum, such as 5s.?

Mr. George Hall: Pyrethrum is a daisy, the flowers of which if properly picked and dried, yield a valuable insecticide; but considerable care is necessary in its preparation, if the proper standard of quality is to be reached. Price is dependent both on quality and on the quantities available not exceeding the requirements of the market. Careful control both of the quality and of the quantity of production is therefore essential if the prosperity of

the industry is to be maintained, and is exercised under the Pyrethrum Ordinance 1938. The proceeds of the licence fee of 50s. are paid into a fund which meets the cost of the Board established under the Ordinance and of research, advertisement and other objects connected with the welfare of the industry. Having regard to the needs of the fund, a less sum than 50s. would be inadequate, and persons competent to produce pyrethrum are at present well able to bear a charge of 50s. My Noble Friend has no information regarding the number of licences granted to Africans and Europeans in 1940, but he is making inquiries.

Mr. Harvey: Can my hon. Friend say whether he is satisfied that Africans can pay this charge?

Mr. Hall: I prefer to await a reply from the Government before answering that question, but I am prepared to discuss the general question with my hon. Friend at any time.

Oral Answers to Questions — WEST AFRICA (RUM IMPORTS).

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the arrangement to export rum to West Africa is designed to increase the consumption of rum in West Africa, or is likely to have that effect; and whether any Governmental consultations have taken place on the matter?

Mr. George Hall: My Noble Friend has no information of any special arrangement to export rum to West Africa. The latest figures available up to August, 1941, show very little change compared with the imports into West Africa for 1939 and 1940. There were no Governmental consultations regarding any arrangements to export rum to West Africa.

Oral Answers to Questions — PENANG (JAPANESE HIGH COMMISSIONER).

Captain Gammans: asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is in a position to make a statement regarding the activities of Mr. Saravanamattu, a British subject, appointed Japanese High Commissioner for Penang; and, in particular, as to


whether Mr. Saravanamattu has accepted this appointment voluntarily or under duress?

Mr. George Hall: My Noble Friend has seen reports in the Press to the effect that the person named had been nominated by the Japanese to the post mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member, but he is not in a position either to confirm or to deny the statement.

Captain Gammans: Does the hon. Gentleman propose to make a declaration that any British subject who willingly co-operates with the Japanese in any territories overrun by them, will be charged with treason when the war is over?

Mr. Hall: I will call the attention of my Noble Friend to the statement made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

Oral Answers to Questions — CYPRUS (CONSTITUTION).

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, as the Cypriot people are loyal supporters of the Allied cause, which they have proved by their sacrifices in the battles of Africa, Greece and on the Western front in 1940, where they have suffered 2,256 casualties, he is prepared to restore civil liberties to the people of Cyprus; and will he make a statement about the restoration of the Constitution which was revoked in 1931?

Mr. George Hall: I am glad to have this opportunity of expressing on behalf of His Majesty's Government their sense of the very valuable contribution which Cyprus is making to His Majesty's Forces and to the Imperial war effort generally. In the present war situation, however, my Noble Friend does not consider it practicable to take up the questions to which the hon. Member refers.

Mr. Gallacher: Is not my hon. Friend aware that this imperialistic determination to keep other people as subjects plays beautifully into the hands of the Axis Powers and menaces the liberty not only of the Colonial people but of the people of this country? Will he urge his Noble Friend to reconsider the matter and institute a measure of liberty in Cyprus?

Mr. Hall: I am sure my hon. Friend appreciates the difficulty at the present time—

Mr. Gallacher: I do not appreciate any difficulty.

Mr. Hall: The attention of the Colonial Office and the local Government is taken up with matters arising out of the war.

Mr. Gallacher: As there is a war on, is it not more desirable to win people as Allies rather than to try and maintain them as subjects?

Oral Answers to Questions — OVERSEAS AERODROMES (DEFENCE).

Mr. Simmonds: asked the Prime Minister whether it has been decided to make changes in the organisation and control of the ground defences of British aerodromes overseas?

The Lord President of the Council (Sir John Anderson): The extent to which it is desirable to introduce changes in the organisation and control of the ground defences of British aerodromes overseas varies in accordance with local conditions, and the matter is now under consideration by the War Office and Air Ministry.

Mr. Simmonds: Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that in connection with this inter-Departmental investigation there will be forthcoming first-hand evidence from those who have had experience of operating the present system overseas?

Sir J. Anderson: Certainly, Sir.

Mr. Hannah: Is not the present position extraordinarily unsatisfactory?

Oral Answers to Questions — SERVICE CASUALTIES (NOTIFICATION).

Major Peto: asked the Prime Minister the methods adopted by the Service Departments for notifying casualties to the next-of-kin; whether such information can be conveyed by the clergy rather than by the police; and what steps are taken to ensure that no information regarding casualties is permitted to become known locally until the next-of-kin have been informed?

Sir J. Anderson: The Service Departments notify casualties to next-of-kin by telegram confirmed by letter, or by letter. The second part of the Question, therefore, does not arise. In the absence of speedier


means of delivery the purport of a telegram relating to a case of dangerous or serious illness may occasionally be conveyed to the next-of-kin by the local police in advance of the physical delivery of the telegram. This may have given rise to the mistaken impression that the police are used to notify casualties as a routine measure. As regards the last part of the Question, every endeavour is made to ensure that the official notification to the next-of-kin is the first intimation of a casualty. But in some cases casualties occur in circumstances which are made the subject of Press announcements before the next-of-kin can be officially informed. If my hon. and gallant Friend has any case in mind where it appears to him that the procedure has been open to criticism, perhaps he would communicate with the Service Department concerned.

Major Peto: Thank you.

Mr. Thorne: What can a mother or father do when no information has been received about a son for two or three months?

Sir J. Anderson: I should have to have notice of that Question.

Oral Answers to Questions — ALLIED WAR COUNCIL.

Mr. Riley: asked the Prime Minister whether any decision has been reached regarding the formation of an Allied War Council for the combined conduct of the war in all theatres; and whether he can make a statement on the subject?

Sir J. Anderson: Perhaps my hon. Friend would be good enough to await the general statement which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister proposes to make at an early date.

Mr. Riley: May I remind the Minister that there is widespread concern about this matter?

Mr. Granville: Is the Minister aware that statements have been made in Washington by Mr. Stephen Early and other representatives of the American Government and at a Press conference held by the President yesterday, and is it not discourteous to public opinion in this country and the House of Commons to postpone a statement of any sort as to what has been

done with regard to the setting-up of an Allied War Council for the conduct of the war?

Sir J. Anderson: I am sure the House would prefer to wait for a full statement by my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Granville: Is the Minister aware that all the time statements are being made in the United States, yet we have to wait four or five weeks before any authoritative statement is made in this country by His Majesty's Government? Is this not treating the House of Commons and public opinion in this country in a discourteous manner?

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTERS' POWERS.

Sir Irving Albery: asked the Prime Minister with reference to the Donoughmore 1932 Report on the subject of Ministers' Powers, whether he will now set up a suitable Standing Committee of this House, or of the two Houses of Parliament, to examine Orders and Regulations and supervise subordinate legislation generally with a view to any necessary action, especially as regards the many regulations, the modification of which would assist the war effort?

Sir J. Anderson: This particular proposal of the Report on Ministers' Powers has not been put into operation, and my right hon. Friend does not desire to express any opinion on its merits for ordinary times. In present circumstances it would be impracticable owing to the number of regulations, rules and orders on which reports would have to be made and considered.

Sir I. Albery: In view of the fact that in present conditions them numerous and frequently important regulations are put into operation without any adequate Parliamentary control or revision, will my right hon. Friend draw the Prime Minister's attention to the question whether it would not be a great advantage that at any rate there should be some subsequent Parliamentary revision of these regulations?

Mr. Hopkinson: In his reply my right hon. Friend mentioned "ordinary times." By the phrase "ordinary times" are we to understand such times as the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) is not Prime Minister?

Oral Answers to Questions — QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.

Mr. Denman: asked the Prime Minister whether he will give the House an opportunity to express its wishes on the Motion, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Leeds Central, that the second round at Questions should be suspended during the war so as to avoid an undesirable waste of Ministers' time?

[That, with a view to avoiding waste of Ministers' time and to adding to time available for debate, the second time round at Questions be abolished for the period of the war.]

Sir J. Anderson: My right hon. Friend regrets that he cannot afford a special opportunity at present for a debate on this Motion.

Mr. Denman: Could not the views of the House be collected through the ordinary channels, seeing that there is involved a real and substantial loss of time to Ministers?

Mr. Mander: Is it not desirable to leave to Private Members some of the few rights that still remain in their hands?

Mr. Stephen: Has the right hon. Gentleman had any representations concerning this matter made to him by Ministers?

Sir J. Anderson: There is no doubt that the suggestion contained in the Question, if carried out, might be of convenience to Ministers, but the Government would be most reluctant to suggest any curtailment in the time given to Parliamentary Questions.

Mr. Cocks: Is it not a fact that we rarely get through the first round of Questions?

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF SUPPLY.

RECLAIMED RUBBER.

Mr. Parker: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (1) whether he is aware that the attention of the Rubber Control Board has been constantly drawn to the likely shortage of reclaimed rubber for a considerable period prior to the Malayan situation; and why the Rubber Control Board stated that no steps were to be taken as there was sufficient plant in the country to satisfy post-war demands;
(2) whether, when setting up Government regenerating plant for the treatment of rubber salvage in various parts of the country, he will undertake to see that steps are taken to ensure the use of the new efficient methods, particulars of which have already been furnished to the Ministry, and that the same consideration for the extension of plant will be given to those firms outside the Rubber Reclaimers' Association?

Dr. Russell Thomas: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply, in view of the loss of our main sources of rubber, whether he is satisfied with the policy hitherto pursued by the Rubber Control Board in regard to the extension of the reclaimed rubber industry?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. Harold Macmillan): The question of a large expansion of the reclaim industry in this country was fully considered by the Ministry of Supply a long time prior to the outbreak of war with Japan, but, having regard to the great pressure on our resources for new constructional work of more immediate war significance, it was decided not to proceed with such a plan. Steps are being taken in the light of the changed situation to extend production by the most expeditious and efficient methods from whatever source they come.

Mr. Parker: Is it not a fact that the control has been, and still remains, effectively in the hands of the plantation and tyre-producing interests in the industry, and that those interests deliberately tried, up to the very time of the Japanese invasion of Malaya, to prevent any development of the retreading or reclaiming industry in this country?

Mr. Macmillan: The Control is advisory to the Minister. The responsibility is in the hands of successive Ministers of Supply.

Mr. Levy: Is my hon. Friend aware that the reclaiming and retreading of rubber have been going on for many months, and that it is an increasing industry which is being effectively carried on?

Mr. Parker: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these industries have been on a very small scale and that Messrs. Dunlop's and other big tyre-producing


interests have done their best to discourage any expansion of plant up to the beginning of the war?

Mr. Macmillan: That is not the Question I was asked. The Control advises the Minister, and successive Ministers of Supply are alone responsible for the decisions taken. It would not be proper for them—nor is it their desire—to shelter behind the advice given by the Control.

Mr. Parker: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

RUBBER CONTROL.

Mr. Parker: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply why the persons responsible for the maladministration in the Rubber Control have been retained in the new Control Board, which has recently been formed?

Mr. Harold Macmillan: I am unable to accept the suggestion that there has been maladministration in the Rubber Control.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Is it not a fact that the members of this Control are drawn from the big rubber-producing industries?

Mr. Macmillan: The members of the new Board are representative of all those who have knowledge of the rubber industry.

CLOCKING-ON SYSTEM (ORDNANCE FACTORIES).

Mr. Tinker: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction that exists among employees at the Royal Ordnance Factories at the clocking-on system that operates when transport is delayed; that more time is deducted than is actually lost; and will he have this matter examined to see whether a mutually satisfactory arrangement can be made with the workers and his representative?

Mr. Harold Macmillan: Although the matter has been brought to my notice as Chairman of the Ministry of Supply Industrial Council, I am not aware that serious dissatisfaction exists. Payment to employees in Government establishments who arrive late because of failure of transport is made from the five-minute point next

following their arrival. This practice is not less favourable to the employee than that adopted in industry generally.

Mr. Tinker: If I send tire hon. Gentleman particulars of my grievance, will he examine it?

Mr. Macmillan: Certainly.

ORDNANCE FACTORIES (MANAGEMENT).

Mr. Daggar: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply whether any decision has been taken to hand over to private enterprise those factories now owned and run by the State?

Mr. J. J. Davidson: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply whether a decision has been taken with reference to the transfer of State factories, works and organisations to private companies; if so, what was the nature of the decision, and when was it taken?

Mr. Harold Macmillan: I would refer the hon. Members to the reply which I gave yesterday to Questions on this subject. The decision was taken early this month.

Mr. Daggar: Are we to accept the reply as being evidence that there is no intention on the part of the Government to transfer these nationally-owned industries to private interests?

Mr. Macmillan: There is no such intention. As I explained in the reply to which I referred, the intention is to ask certain firms to help us to launch some of these new factories, but when they are in running order, they will revert to the normal Royal Ordnance factory system.

Mr. Mander: How many factories have been so handed over?

Mr. Macmillan: I would rather not give details about the number of ordnance factories.

RAILINGS (REQUISITIONING).

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply for what reason the circular letter, of 11th September, from his Ministry instructing local authorities to prepare schedules of iron railings for requisition omitted to impose on the surveyor the obligation to notify the owner which of his possessions it was proposed to confiscate?

Mr. Harold Macmillan: The circular letter required local authorities to give public notice of intention to conduct the survey, and again, when notified by the Ministry of Works and Buildings that a clearance scheme was to be carried out in their area, to publish in the local Press and exhibit in public places notices indicating the streets and places from which it was intended to remove the railings.

Sir A. Knox: Surely, notice ought to be given, as it is incumbent upon the unfortunate owner, if he wants to make an appeal, to do so within 14 days, and is it not a fact that these surveys are made largely by voluntary women workers who are really not competent to carry out the work?

Mr. Macmillan: That is another point. One of the difficulties in giving notice to individual owners is that often a great number of different people have an interest in some of the railings, and it is very difficult to trace all of them.

Sir Robert Young: Is the Minister aware that sometimes only six or seven hours' notice is given?

SYNTHETIC RUBBER AND CONTROL BOARD.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (1) what steps are being taken, and in prospect, for the manufacture of synthetic rubber; and what in general is the crude rubber, rubber waste and synthetic rubber position in this country to-day;
(2) whether he will publish the names of the reconstituted Rubber Control Board, with their credentials for the work, and direct their attention to the fact that it has been the studied policy of the new tyre interests to encourage waste and destruction of tyres by every commercial means; what steps are being taken to prevent this and also to make proper use of waste rubber and synthetic rubber?

Mr. Harold Macmillan: The question of the manufacture of synthetic rubber in Great Britain is being considered in relation to the general question of Inter-Ally supply. It would not be in the public interest to give particulars of our supplies of rubber. Every possible step is being taken to economise in the consumption of rubber in tyres and other manufactures and to make use of the

available supplies of waste. I will circulate particulars of the composition of the Rubber Control Board in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: If the position with regard to crude rubber and rubber generally is satisfactory, would it not be very much better to give very full particulars about it?

Mr. Macmillan: My hon. and gallant Friend will realise that I woud not wish to publish the stocks.

Mr. Levy: What steps are being taken now effectively to use synthetic rubber?

Following are the particulars:

The Rubber Control Board, which acts in an advisory capacity to the Ministry of Supply, consists of the following:

Sir George Beharrell (Chairman)—Rubber manufacturer.
Mr. L. W. Farrow (Deputy-Chairman)—Chartered Accountant and company director.
Sir Walrond Sinclair—Rubber manufacturer.
Mr. J. F. Milne—Rubber grower.
Mr. R. S. Thompson—Rubber broker.
Mr. J. Bennett—Rubber dealer.
Mr. W. G. Essex—Rubber reclaimer.

SCRAP RUBBER.

Mr. A. Edwards: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply whether arrangements have been made to collect discarded tyre covers unfit for remoulding as part of his scrap-rubber campaign?

Mr. Harold Macmillan: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES.

MILK (PRICES).

Sir P. Hurd: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food the results of his consultations with the representatives of milk producers regarding a national milk price which will take adequate account of present-day costs of production and the national necessity to maintain milk supplies?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Major Lloyd George): The proposals on this subject which have been made by the Milk Marketing Board for England and Wales, in agreement with the National Farmers' Union, are being closely considered, but I am not at present able to make a statement.

Sir P. Hurd: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that statements have been appearing giving detailed results?

Major Lloyd George: I am not responsible for those statements, and my answer is that I am not in a position to make a statement.

POTATOES.

Mr. T. Smith: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food how the difference between the producer-price and the consumer-price of potatoes is apportioned to wholesalers and retailers, respectively?

Major Lloyd George: The difference between the fixed grower's price and the maximum retail price is apportioned on the following basis: to wholesalers, from 40s. to 55s. per ton depending on the distance of transport; to retailers, from 50s. to 62s. 6d. per ton according to the variety and class of potato. These are maximum margins which are reduced by competition.

Colonel Carver: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food what are the duties of local potato supervisors; and whether they are empowered to take over general average crops, as well as those showing signs of disease?

Major Lloyd George: Area potato supervisors are local officers responsible to divisional potato supervisors for carrying out instructions issued by the potato division, including the purchase of sound as well as deteriorating stocks offered by growers.

PRICE-CUTTING (CANNED GOODS).

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware of grievances existing with small shopkeepers respecting the alleged price-cutting of canned goods rationed under the Points Scheme; that, as they are not permitted to engage in collective buying, an inadequate margin within the price unfairly penalises them; and whether he will consider any representations made to him on the matter by organisations of that type of shopkeeper?

Major Lloyd George: As I stated in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Evelyn Walkden), on 9th December, there is nothing improper in any trader selling

price-controlled foodstuffs at less than the maximum price which is prescribed by Order. I cannot agree that the trade margins which have been fixed by the Ministry are inadequate for any class of trader. I will, however consider any representations which my hon. Friend wishes to send to me.

Mr. Sorensen: Has the Parliamentary Secretary had any representations from representative bodies on this point?

Major Lloyd George: I do not think we have had any representations on this particular point, although there have been representations on other aspects of it.

Mr. George Griffiths: Do these instructions mean that the maximum price is also the minimum price, whatever the profits?

Major Lloyd George: The maximum price is the maximum price which may be charged. It is not a fixed price.

EGGS.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food what changes are in prospect in the system of egg collection and distribution as between the producers, the packing stations, the wholesalers and the retailers; and whether he is aware that co-operative packing stations are dependent for their solvency on the system whereby they deliver their goods direct to retailers?

Major Lloyd George: The only changes in prospect are those necessitated by the urgent need for the fullest possible economy in transport. Packing stations through their national organisation have been asked to prepare schemes for the pooling of their transport for the collection of eggs. Schemes for various parts of the country have been submitted and are under consideration. They do not affect the sale of eggs by packer wholesalers to those retailers who have nominated them as their egg suppliers.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that packing stations, many of which are co-operative in character, are genuinely afraid the work which they have built up over so many years may now be destroyed?

Major Lloyd George: If my hon. and gallant Friend cares to make any representations, I shall be very glad to look into the matter.

POTATOES AND CARROTS.

Colonel Carver: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether, in view of the order for an increased production of potatoes and carrots, he is aware of the large accumulation of these, which merchants are reluctant to buy or remove, as they themselves have their storage places filled; and whether, as the position is at present discouraging to growers, he will consider taking over of these crops, and not leaving the responsibility for depreciation and loss entirely on the grower?

Major Lloyd George: Yes, Sir, I am aware that, in accordance with Government policy, there are substantial reserves of potatoes and carrots in the country. With regard to potatoes, I am advised that there is a steady trade and no accumulation in growers' hands inconsistent with the holding of stocks for trading until the end of the season. Growers who wish to be relieved of finding a market for their potatoes may offer them to the Ministry for purchase not later than 31st March, 1942. The Ministry will also take over any surplus unsold by growers on 31st May, 1942. With regard to carrots, growers are compensated for normal depreciation of stocks held by them on the farm, by means of a rising scale of prices to the end of May. They also have the assurance that all sound and marketable carrots will be purchased by the National Vegetable Marketing Company.

Mr. Thorne: With reference to a statement which appeared in the Press, is it the intention of the Minister to restrict the sale of potatoes?

Major Lloyd George: No, Sir, not that I am aware of.

Sir Granville Gibson: Can the Parliamentary Secretary state what prices are to be paid for potatoes and carrots?

Major Lloyd George: I have not got the details with me, but the prices will, of course, vary according to the period.

PROSECUTION, SOUTHWARK.

Mr. Isaacs: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he will examine the facts disclosed in a prosecution by the Southwark Borough Council of a firm offering coloured sugar for sale as lemonade powder at 1s. 4d.

per lb., which they purchased from Messrs. M. Saper, Limited, Argall Avenue, Lea Bridge Factory Estate, who held a priority permit from the Ministry of Food to obtain sugar for manufacturing purposes and who were fined at the Lambeth Police Court on 31st December, 1941; and will he consider taking such steps to prevent this evasion of the provisions of the Rationing Order, 1939, and the subsequent fraud upon the public?

Major Lloyd George: The facts in this case are already being investigated. The retailers of the coloured sugar sold as lemonade powder were prosecuted by the Southwark Food Control Committee under the Rationing Order for supplying sugar without authority, for selling sugar at a price in excess of the maximum, and for entering into a fictitious transaction. These cases were heard at the same court and at the same time as the prosecution by the borough council. It is incorrect to say that M. Saper, Ltd., hold a priority permit from the Ministry of Food, but the amount of their permits for sugar for manufacturing purposes is being reviewed.

Mr. Isaacs: Is the Department taking special steps to see that these acts of fraud on the public are stopped as speedily as possible?

Major Lloyd George: The matter is being investigated. As the hon. Member is no doubt aware, a new Order has been issued, probably since this prosecution, which safeguards the public in regard to many of these substitutes.

BRITISH RESTAURANTS.

Miss Cazalet: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food what instructions from the Ministry of Food are given to the divisional food officers regarding the necessity of regular inspection of all British Restaurants, both those under the aegis of the Ministry of Food and those financed by local authorities?

Major Lloyd George: The importance of the regular inspection of British Restaurants was impressed on divisional food officers when the catering officers were originally appointed, and has been since brought periodically to their notice. In the case of British Restaurants financed by local authorities, the services of the catering officers are available for advice on request by local authorities.

Miss Cazalet: Is the Parliamentary Secretary satisfied with the present machinery and that the British Restaurants are being adequately visited?

Major Lloyd George: Yes, Sir, I have visited most of the Divisions and have had meals at these restaurants. If the conditions I have seen are representative of the country as a whole, I am perfectly satisfied that these restaurants are doing their work very well indeed.

Miss Cazalet: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food to what extent his Department exercises any authority in the appointment of cooks and supervisors in British Restaurants?

Major Lloyd George: The appointment of staff for British Restaurants is a matter for the local authority concerned, but the assistance of the expert catering officers of the Ministry is available whenever local authorities desire advice on the qualifications of candidates for the posts of supervisors and cooks.

Miss Cazalet: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food how many additional catering officers have been appointed since 1st December, 1941, for the purpose of inspecting British Restaurants as well as the supervision of original schemes?

Major Lloyd George: Since 1st December, 1941, one additional catering officer has been appointed and the filling of six further posts is at present under consideration.

Mr. Mander: Why has it been decided to discontinue the restaurants after the war?

Major Lloyd George: That does not arise out of this Question.

Miss Cazalet: How many additional catering officers does the Parliamentary Secretary intend appointing?

Major Lloyd George: I think the figure is about six.

RECORDING OF PRIME MINISTER'S STATEMENT.

The following Motion stood upon the Order Paper in the name of The PRIME MINISTER.
That the statement on the War Situation to be made by the Prime Minister in this House on the First Sitting Day after 25th January be electrically recorded, with a view to being subsequently broadcast.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): As there appears to be so much difference of opinion about this Motion which stands on the Order Paper, I do not intend to press it.

Sir Hugh O'Neill: In view of the statement which the Prime Minister has just made, can he say whether it is still his intention to broadcast to the country on the same day as he makes his speech in the House of Commons?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I shall do so.

Sir H. O'Neill: In view of the fact that it is obviously a great strain on the Prime


Minister to make two speeches on the same day, one in the House of Commons and one on the wireless, would it not be better in future if he arranged to make his broadcast statements on days when he does not have to make an important speech in the House of Commons?

The Prime Minister: I will bear that in mind, but my reluctance to do the same thing twice over on the same day arises less from fatigue than from certain inartistic qualities naturally inseparable from a re-hash.

Captain Plugge: While appreciating the reasons prompting my right hon. Friend to withdraw this Motion, may I ask him if he will not consider appointing a small Committee of the House of Commons to look more fully into the implications of this question as a result of my suggestion yesterday?

The Prime Minister: I think I have had had enough of it.

Sir Percy Harris: Does the Prime Minister realise how much the House of Commons appreciates his democratic instinct and his desire to defer to the general feeling of the House?

Mr. Shinwell: Has the Prime Minister ever considered whether there is another Member of the Government capable of undertaking these broadcasts?

Sir William Davison: Does the Prime Minister realise that the objections which are felt to his original proposal arise from fears that it would set a precedent for ordinary matters of party politics, and would not democracy be well advised to show that it can adapt its procedure to deal with times of national emergency?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: Further to what the right hon. Baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) has just said, may I say how much this action will be appreciated as being in marked, significant contrast to what would have happened in dictatorship countries? It is a most generous gesture.

Orders of the Day — LANDLORD AND TENANT (REQUISITIONED LAND) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

The Solicitor-General (Sir William Jowitt): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
It is a small but, I think, a useful Measure, and I believe it will prove non-controversial. It is, of course, inevitable that in war-time there must be a very large number of requisitions of property, and also that some people whose property is requisitioned must feel a very real sense of grievance, and it is obviously very desirable that we should do everything possible to see that the necessary requisitions are conducted in such a way as to inflict a minimum amount of inconvenience and discomfort on the people affected. That can in part be done by courtesy, by tact, and by realising that, although, of course, the interests of any individual must give way to the interests of the welfare of the country as a whole, yet, in considering whether any premises should or should not be requisitioned, one of the factors always to be taken into account should be the interest, the welfare, of the persons affected. If you can with equal convenience obtain other premises which will not inflict hardship upon individuals, there is always a strong case for obtaining those other premises. It is, however, surprising, in view of the very large number of requisitions there have been, how small is the volume of complaints in regard to what has been done.
That is no reason why we should not try to see whether we can do something to get rid of the grievances that remain. Accordingly the Chancellor of the Exchequer asked Mr. John Morris, an eminent member of my own profession, to conduct an inquiry into the matter. In due course he reported, and I am sure that Members of all parties will be grateful to Mr. Morris for the care that he has shown in making the report, which is a White Paper, Cd. 6313, in which he sets out the results of his experiences. He sets out the fact that there have been a very large number of requisitions and that on the whole complaints have been few, and he analyses, as far as he can what


those complaints come to. In so far as they can be met by departmental administrative action, steps have already been taken to that end, but there are two respects in which legislation is required if Mr. Morris's proposals are to be carried out, and it is to give effect to them that the Bill has been introduced.
It is, therefore, a Bill to amend the law in relation to landlord and tenant in the case of requisitioned premises, and it proceeds according to the Chancellor's promise on 11th September that he would bring in legislation of this sort. The proposals given effect to by the Bill are, firstly, that in certain circumstances tenants whose premises have been requisitioned shall be given an option to disclaim their leases and, secondly, that in certain other cases tenants of requisitioned premises shall have the right to a readjustment of the rents payable to the landlord. I think it is obvious that a tenant who is, in effect, in residence in certain premises, which he is using either for his own residence or for that of his family or as his business, is in a position which may cause him to suffer special hardship by requisitioning. Not only, if the premises are requisitioned, may he receive less rent than the rent that he is under an obligation to pay to his landlord by reason of a fall in the value of the premises, but, in order to live, or perhaps to carry on his business, he may find himself under an obligation to acquire a lease of other premises, and thus he may find himself under an obligation to pay the rents of two premises, the One that has been requisitioned and the other that he had to take by reason of the fact that the first had been requisitioned. He is obviously in a very different position from a tenant who is not living or carrying on business in the premises that are requisitioned. If such premises are vacant, the requisitioning may be actually a boon to the tenant. He may get something for them instead of having a liability on his hands.
Therefore Mr. Morris recommended that tenants who are actually ejected from premises in which they are residing, or from which they are effectively carrying on business, should be given the right, if they so desire, to disclaim their leases, and the first four Clauses of the Bill substantially give effect to that recommendation. We provide in Clause I that residence

must be real and continuous and that the use as business premises must be substantial, and therefore we have to concede to the landlord the right to apply to the court to have it determined, if he controverts it, whether the conditions—effective residence and the like—are or are not complied with. We desire to help in the main the tenant who, as a result of requisitioning, is forced to seek alternative accommodation, and we do not think we ought to help the man who has premises to spare or premises of which he is making little use.

Mr. Morris: further recommended that it would be unreasonable to give the right of disclaimer where there is a long period of the lease still to run. Otherwise a lessee with a long and onerous lease would be able to get rid of his obligation merely because the premises had been requisitioned for a short time. Mr. Morris therefore recommended that the right to disclaim should be available only where the requisition is likely to last for a period which constitutes a substantial part of the remaining period of the lease, and that will be given effect to in Clause 8. Speaking by and large, we give this right only in cases where the unexpired term of the lease is five years or less. The material date is either the passing of the Bill into an Act, in the case of previous requisitions, or in the case of future requisitions you date your five years from the date of the requisitioning. The right to disclaim is retrospective in this sense. Tenants who have suffered from a requisition before the passing of the Act, and whose premises remain still under requisition, can give notice to disclaim within three months from the passing of the Act, and in that case the disclaimer operates from the date of the passing of the Act. We felt that it would be undesirable and, indeed, impracticable to go right back and give further retrospective effect to these proposals, because to do so would lead to very complicated results in regard to money which had already been paid.

Mr. Tinker: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain exactly what is meant by "disclaimer"?

The Solicitor-General: The Bill gives the tenant the right to say, "I give up my lease." We call it "disclaimer." Under the Landlord and Tenant Act if premises are sufficiently damaged by


enemy action, the tenant has the right to what is called "disclaimer." We propose to give him the same right in the event of requisitioning.
The second matter with which the Bill deals is this: It is designed to resolve the difficulties of those tenants whose leases do not correspond with the hypothetical lease on which the right to compensation under the War Compensation Act is based. Under the War Compensation Act, compensation has to be assessed as provided in Clause 2 (1a); that is, broadly speaking, on the basis that the tenant undertakes all the usual tenants' rates and taxes and has to bear the cost of repairs insurance and other expenses, if any, "necessary to maintain the land in a state to demand that rent." It may and frequently does happen, particularly in the case of flats and offices, that the landlord provides certain services, such as heating and a lift and things of that sort and, consequently, the tenant pays a much higher rent than he would pay if those services were not provided. What is to happen if those premises are requisitioned and the tenant goes out of them, and cannot any longer avail himself of those services? As the law stands, if the requisitioning does not put an end to the tenancy, the tenant has to go on paying the amount fixed by the lease, although that amount is swollen by reason of the fact that the landlord has provided those services to which I have referred. In practice, I am glad to say that requisitioning Departments have, largely, been able to resolve these difficulties by bringing the landlord and the tenant together. If often happens that the requisitioning Department requires these services, and in those cases, an arrangement is made between the requisitioning Department, the landlord and the tenant, and in the great majority of cases that arrangement works well. There are, however, some cases in which it has not worked and in which the landlord has been insistent on getting the full rent, although he is no longer required to provide the services.
This Bill, in Clause 5, provides that the rent payable by the tenant, in the cases which I have put, may be adjusted so that the tenant, although he may be liable under the lease, is to be liable only for such rent as is attributable to those premises on the basis of the compensation, and not of the rent as swollen by the fact

that those extra services have been provided. The landlord, of course, is relieved from his obligation to provide the services unless the requisitioning Department requires them, in which case the Bill provides that they shall be available for the remainder of the teen of the lease, upon the Department undertaking the obligation to pay for them on the basis of the lease. That is to say, in the case which I have indicated, the tenant will pay the rent on the basis of the Compensation Act, and the Department will pay such part of the rent as represented the services.
I give another instance. Suppose a floor in a block of offices is taken over by a requisitioning authority, that authority will probably need the use of the lift and possibly also a hot water supply. The Bill provides that, so long as the lease lasts, the Department concerned may require the landlord to continue to provide such services on the same basis as that contained in the lease, the requisitioning Department paying to the landlord the appropriate part of the rent in respect of those services. Technically, therefore, that may involve a charge on the Exchequer, and that is why it is necessary to have a Money Resolution. In practice, I do not think it should involve any additional expenditure. It is really a more convenient way of obtaining services which the Department concerned would, in any case, have to secure and which it would otherwise secure by direct negotiation with the landlord, or by getting the outgoing tenant to require the continuance of these services and paying compensation to the outgoing tenant in respect of them.
It is hoped that this little Bill will give tenants a useful measure of relief in cases in which they are suffering hardship and inconvenience as a result of requisitioning. We have tried to hold the scales fairly between landlord and tenant, and I believe we have done so. Restricted as it is to leases which have only a short period to run, and to those cases in which the tenant is in actual effective possession, I do not think landlords can regard the Bill as an injustice to them. We invite the co-operation of the House, to see whether the Bill can be improved in Committee, but, as far as the Second Reading is concerned, I feel confident that all parts of the House will welcome the proposals and will agree that they merit consideration in subsequent stages.

Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: No one who has read the report submitted by Mr. John Morris can fail to appreciate the care with which he has examined the difficulties submitted to him or the reasonableness of the proposals which he has made to resolve them. I rise, on behalf of myself and a number of my hon. Friends, to express our appreciation of the action of the Government in having put into effect administratively as many of these proposals as they could, and in now implementing their promise by introducing legislation to cover the two points which could not be dealt with administratively. In the second place, I should like, again on behalf of myself and my hon. Friends, to say how much we appreciate the clear explanation of the two matters which are dealt with in the Bill, just given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General. He has covered the ground in such a way that it is unnecessary for me to make more than one comment of a general character on the Bill.
My comment is a curious one. It will be appreciated, I think, that hidden in the interstices of this technical and complicated Measure is to be found the Government's forecast of the duration of the war. It will be noted that the proposals for the disclaimer of leases are meant to cover only those leases which, roughly, coincide with or extend a little beyond the probable duration of the requisition. The material date we have to look at is that on which the premises were requisitioned. The earliest date at which premises could have been requisitioned, broadly speaking, was the date of the outbreak of the war. I suppose that requisition will extend a little beyond the duration of the war, and the period given in Clause 8 is five years. I deduce from that that it is the considered view of His Majesty's Government that we are now more than half-way through the war. I can, therefore, express my appreciation of this Measure, not only on what it directly seeks to achieve, but on what it indirectly reveals in hopefulness for us.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for the next Sitting Day.—[Mr. A. Young.]

Orders of the Day — LANDLORD AND TENANT (REQUISITIONED LAND) [MONEY].

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 69.

[Colonel CLIFTON BROWN in the Chair.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the disclaimer of leases comprising land of which possession has been taken in the exercise of emergency powers and (among other matters) for requiring the continuance after possession of such land has been taken as aforesaid of certain services provided by the landlord, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of periodical sums in respect of the provision of any such services." (King's recommendation signified.)—[Captain Crookshank.]

Mr. Tinker: Is there any idea of the amount of money required?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Crookshank): No, but it would not be a great sum. The question would only arise when the arrangement had to be come to which my right hon. Friend outlined, when the requisitioning Department put into the shoes of the existing tenant wanted to enjoy the various services, such as lifts, hot water and so on, which are attached to the lease. It is for purely technical reasons that a Financial Resolution is put down at all. No great sum is involved, and it would be impossible to work it out now.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported upon the next Sitting Day.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. A. Young.]